So you are after a single home page that has all 3 APPs running together to save “switching”
Sorry can’t see that as an advantage but rather wasting screen space.
I see merits on both sides of this debate and wonder if we can try to meet the aims of both.
For example using a simple browser that can be distributed with different configuration information. So you can download different starter setups which will be independent of maidsafe and will compete with each other (a bit like Linux distributions but far less complicated at least to start with).
At its simplest I suggest the browser has a configurable ‘Home Tab’ that is what you see when you start it, and can contain icon-links to live Web apps for essentials such as messing / email, wallet and app store. (This could be very simple to implement, eg just a default HTML page, either from your local device or from the live network. If the latter, you wouldn’t even need separate downloads, just a choice of which home page to load on starting the browser).
The Browser Home page links could either be safe:// Web links which open a tab that loads the given Web app (live from the network), or which start a separate desktop/mobile app already installed on the device. (The latter would be more complex to implement - because these would need to be installed somehow - and would not feel as integrated with the browser).
Note that using Web app implementations which open in browser tabs would keep these most popular features inside the browser which is close to what @andreruigrok wants. While the browser itself is not really bloated, and for those that want it the basic no frills Browser is available anyway as an alternative. It would also be easy for people to create and share their own Browser Home pages with each other just by storing them as public SAFE websites.
What do people think of this approach?
EDIT: I’d like to suggest one more killer app as part of the Browser: Vault (a simple Web ? app which manages a local Vault so that farming is effectively built in when you install the browser, and can be managed without any separate app or the need to edit configuration files manually).
8 Likes
Sounds like we are on the same tract dopesn’t it
But I also suggested that another way is to have ADDONs that provide the functionality in the browser. This keeps the browser bloat free yet allows it to be in the browser. The ADDONs can be uninstalled if the user wants to use a specialised or more complex APP to do it. The reason is that I am sure people will find more functions that will be essential to the new user and they can be safesites or addons too.
3 Likes
Hi Happy Being, thanks for your answer.
I would suggest to make it default with a toggle it off option, at installation (and of course in preferences).
It will not take up any space: one button showing if you have 1, 5 or 20 new messages and the other one showing your Safecoin balance. These two buttons being visible at all times.
So it is not the idea to have it run as a full app running on the same screen taking up screen space, but more like always present “direct link to” buttons that will expand when clicking on it.
Seemingly the mayority would like to see it function like that in the browser, few not, so by giving people the chance to turn it on or off, everyone will be happy 
I’m kind of new here but I’m pretty much opposed to integrating anything into anything. Shortcuts are great and a unified user experience is obviously desirable, but to me a browser is for browsing, a messenger app is for messaging, a wallet is for handling your crypto and so on. I’m also opposed to turning various functions on by default, e.g. auto-correct in Libreoffice. I like my machine to do exactly what I want it to do and only that. If I want more functions I go “sudo apt-get install $”. But just like Grandma I also like GUI. 
My understanding is the whole project is about creating infrastructure that facilitates “plugins” to work together nicely, i.e. modularity. Let’s stay modular.
4 Likes
So we better carry around many individual tools, instead of a Swiss pocket knife? 
I always carry my Leatherman with me. Always. That’s for small “emergencies”. But if I break a blade I have to replace the whole thing, which is not practical. I don’t replace my whole tool shed with just a pocket knife.
A browser is not a killer app. Nobody using the internet wants another browser. MaidSafe is not in the browser business.
Differentiating MaidSafe from everything else on the planet (which is what it’s suppose to be all about) “out-of-the-box” is crucial to creating the buzz and its immediate utility will contribute.
Edit: also big fan of the integral wallet. New users would be constantly reminded safecoin balance at zero. Subtle reminder to buy or farm, creating obvious benefits.
3 Likes
No need for have duty, blade-breaking rituals here. We only need functionality, all in hand reach.
The Gameboy was for playing games you bought in the store, but as it got you Tetris for free it turned into on of the most successful platforms ever. There are several reasons for MaidSafe to provide some web_apps with their bundle (which could be removed within a minute if you dislike them):
Security:
- When MaidSafe provides a wallet_app bundled with the browser you could be very sure it’s more secure than what others provide. These devs built the whole system so they for one know how to get it secure.
- When MaidSafe provides a email_app you don’t have to worry your messages might end up in some MD where some evil devs have created some secret ownership for that datatype as well. You again know it’s sure as it’s made in Troon and tested by a whole community
Ease of use:
- I don’t want normal users to go through a weird registration system like the Ethereum ENS. It works but look at all these addresses and the use of a contract. That’s not made for normal people but for devs. If you don’t deliver any app people will grab whatever they can getting confused about what’s the best one etc.
- Providing just 3 core apps (wallet, ID, email) will show of all these functions to new users in an instant. Why make it any harder than that??
I’m glad Windows comes with Notepad, Paint and Windows Defender. We (as nerds) like to do that stuff ourselves, but for the average user out there it’s just a case of using a system in the most simple way possible.
9 Likes
Not sure if it’s been mentioned but a benefit of using web apps or addons as @neo suggests is that they can be developed in parallel more easily. You won’t need to roll out a new version of the browser just because you want to do a quick fix in the messaging app. This allow a more agile dev process. Something particularly important at this point of the project.
I suggest to keep it simple for now and add complexity later when it’s really needed.
4 Likes
I’m not at all against having diverse functionality or many functions. I just think the software providing these functions should be packaged in such a way that one package provides one function. It is of course debatable what one function means, but the smaller the better. Just like a regular GNU/Linux distro like my favorite Mint provides pretty much everything out of the box. That’s one reason I use it. It’s a compilation of independent parts with clear dependencies. The average user (I’m a language major - not a real nerd myself) doesn’t even have to know this. He just point and clicks in the software manager if he wants to add something, like an extra media player that happens to be his favorite. Or when he want to remove something. “Core” functionality means different things to different people. Even a wallet is not “core” to most people.
3 Likes
This is the best solution IMO. Keep things modular yet accessible for new user. Later on, make the list customizable. And if you want extra feature like showing notification on new messages you can provide this functionality through the browser API. As a bonus you also provide it for any other web apps.
Just don’t hard bundle the code inside the browser’s code, there’s little benefit to it (not saying someone suggested it, but just saying for clarity).
2 Likes
Jeez! We’re going in circles. No need to cry about hard coding different functionality into the browser. We all know browsers allow for addons/plugins etc to be installed before or after distribution.
In this case we should “bundle” a few with the browser for the 90% percent of users and stop thinking about our personal geeky desires.
@anon40790172 put it best. Noobs just want something that works. Not the potential headache of link clicking, interpretation, experimentation, blah. As an experienced user even I’ve come across the challenge of seeking out software only to be derailed and deceived by the ambiguity of titles and descriptions. Some going as far as to lie all together. Imo the best approach is to grant the AVERAGE user a sense of confidence that the makers of this new secure system has their back from the jump by providing the essentials. Users like us need only click disable or uninstall and move on…
Oh and did I mentions addons can be updated independently. All problems solved. Now its just a matter of implementation. They need to be positioned intuitively while not being intrusive for us technical folk. Else we lose our minds 
4 Likes
Oh lol sure, my bad, I didn’t realize this thread had that much mileage 
.
So yeah, short term: html links. Long term: addons. Move on.
1 Like
I feel like you made excellent points René, I also don’t want bloat ware but being given the default option of a safe browser/app bundle or just the browser and the benefits perhaps could make it more successful.
2 Likes
I have no where said do not provide these essential APPs/functionality with the downloaded binary.
ALL I have said is to not include them in the browser code because that bloats it and opens it up to bugs and security flaws because of the more than doubled complexity in the code.
I HAVE said include the functionality in a few ways, one as ADDONs so that the user has them in the browser and can be removed/replaced without changing the browser. Two as SAFEsites.
[spoiler]This is what we should not have - combining all three into one big APP
[quote=“andreruigrok, post:16, topic:14669”]
If you combine those three into the first “app” a user downloads (the Safebrowser), you have the killer app that will turn the safe network into a success, as from day one.
[/quote][/spoiler]
2 Likes
Neo, just curious, do you think that a browser could freeze if the external ‘add on’ app is not functioning correctly?
If your answer is yes, and it should be yes, than your whole point doesnt make sense.
You give me the idea you wanted to build an app like this yourself. I would applaud that, you’d just have to make it better than the one we are requesting, so that we have a use case for it.
Seeing as Maidsafe is supplying the browser and the ADDONs to provide those must have functionality, I fail to see your point. Are you saying that Maidsafe will provide faulty browser or addons?
Also you point means there is 6 times the testing for the 3 in one APP. Reason for 6 times is the 6 way interactions between 3 distinct tightly connected sections. A–>B, B–>C, C–>A, A<–B, B<–C, C<–A. But if you use addons then only need to test each loosely connected Addon interaction with the browser. This separates the testing and reduces the interactions and thus complexity.
No i did not say that and the way you’re going will get us into a discussion that will be too lengthy for my taste.
I am going to enjoy the rest of my weekend.
All the best,
André
1 Like